Connect with us

RussiaFeed

News

Politics

Russia makes a convenient enemy to blame for the West’s failures

As a changing world begins to threaten traditional western dominance, the new-old enemy Russia is a familiar scapegoat

Published

on

7 Views

(New Eastern Outlook) – Over the last few centuries, roughly after the Peace of Westphalia when the borders of states were determined after unceasing and bloody wars, Russia with her vast territory, seas, rivers, forests, natural riches, brilliant composers, writers and, most importantly, her people – so rugged, so able to survive in a harsh climate, and in such severe conditions – appeared to Western Europe as a different world: far away, unknown, and menacing. Even in the enlightened 19th century, accounts from visitors to Russia seemed strange, confused, at times simply an outright fable to down-to-earth inhabitants of Western Europe, which caused amazement and fear. To be sure, Russia was always considered a great power, both European and global. Others endeavored to attract her to their side in the global struggle for dominance on the seas and lands, in conflicts over natural riches, and for power. In the context of a bipolar world, the Soviet Union and those associating with her supporters were labelled a source of “universal evil.”

And for only one period, not long in historical terms, after the breakup of the USSR, which turned out to be a tragedy for those living within its borders, Russia, weakened and seeming to lose its supporting roots, began to be called in Western capitals a friend, partner, and even a colleague.

But the place of an enemy devil does not remain empty. By this time, an internal crisis appeared in the Old world, and the demographic problem was coming to the fore. For menial labor, the aging population needed ever more immigrants who were, supposedly, to have integrated into European institutions and taken “their right place.” Instead, the completely unpredictable happened. New generations of Muslim immigrants publicly announced their intent to preserve their own identity and traditions within the European community. This caused serious alarm among the Western elite. Media outlets and politicians in their public appearances gave warnings about the threatening Islamization of Europe, and that Islam was the main enemy of modern civilization. The then NATO Secretary General Willy Claes spoke about that with convincing candor (for that straight talk he was quickly hounded out of office as Secretary General).

Then came September 11th, 2001, the greatest act of terror in history. Afterward, other acts occurred in a number of European countries, smaller in scale, but sowing no less fear. At that time, the American political analyst Samuel Huntington’s put forth his theory on the “Clash of Civilizations”, which became famous instantly. Then, numerous studies followed, in which it was proven “scientifically” that violence and terror are an intrinsic part of the Islamic religion.

And that is how the “enemy” revealed himself, so needed by Western elites to justify the arms race, NATO’s expansion, and provide a handy excuse to assign blame to a real or imaginary enemy for all problems, missteps, and blunders. The confrontational air between the West and the Islamic world escalated sharply during the dramatic, violent events of the “Arab Spring,” and armed interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

Furthermore, American media outlets, when necessary, became clever with their designations of particular “evildoers.” For example, it was Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then it was Muammar Gaddafi, and then the leader of North Korea. Under conditions of a unipolar world this immoral, irresponsible style of spreading information was taken for granted.

Toward the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the situation in the world began to take on new shapes. The tendency was becoming clear for changes in the balance of power and movement, quite clearly, toward a multipolar world. This coincided with the fast-paced growth of the systemic crisis of the West itself, which began to acquire an even larger scale. Existing structures in Western societies began to decay. This process, naturally, led to massive public outpourings of protest, especially because of the middle classes’ reduced standard of living, the widening gap between rich and poor, and erosion of society’s moral values.

In order to dampen the intensity of the demonstrations, Western ruling elites, with zero forethought, resorted to the tried and tested stereotype: explaining the emerging difficulties and problems to the intrigues of a foreign enemy. And so, once again, Russia became the “new old enemy.” She, above all, was accused of all mortal sins: for meddling in internal affairs, for subverting the West’s unity, and “even for electing in Western governments leaders she needed.” There seemed to be no limit to the schizophrenic fantasy and fabrications of Western media outlets. One can’t help recalling Goebbels’s sinister pronouncement, that a lie must be colossal for people to believe it.

The expression “fake news” appeared right at that time. Sergey Lavrov even spoke about fake diplomacy. It was not uncommon for our Western colleagues to renege on already signed agreements, and obligations they had accepted.

Even with the rabid and aggressive anti-Russian campaign it would be a mistake to assume that everyone in Western countries swallows all of this as the truth, and does not realize that the true state of affairs is otherwise. “It is important that we understand that the U.S. has largely been doing these things to itself,” stated the New York Times in its article, “The Self-Destruction of American Democracy” dated November 30, 2017,” i.e. disorder in international affairs is not the result of Russia’s activities, but the result of the West’s own policies. That same thought was expressed on the Deutsche Welle site on December 4, 2017 emphasizing that Western countries should seek sources of their problems “in their own homes, and not in the Kremlin.”

It’s notable that in this period certain political analysts began speaking about how the level of professionalism, competence, and just plain knowledge has noticeably decreased among the Western elite.

“The acrobatic somersaults of the Great Donaldo are an object of wonder in America’s diplomatic circus,” wrote the English Times a few days ago, adding that, “Policies have been flipped, sometimes twice in a week, to the open-mouthed bemusement of the global audience.”

Virtually every day the main American newspapers, such as the New York Times and Washington Post publish articles with sharp criticism of the American president. Almost daily, the papers print a large number of articles by columnists, who write about the American president’s self-destructive policies.

And those are not exclusively an American phenomenon. This same style of behavior is becoming characteristic for Western politicians. Some time ago, the minister of foreign affairs of UK, Boris Johnson, while speaking at a conference of the Conservative party in Manchester, hurled insulting tirades toward Libya. Libyans reacted with outrage. The country’s parliament demanded apologies, and the head of the Libyan government in Tripoli, Fayez al-Sarraj, characterized Johnson’s comments as “unacceptable.” Commenting on this statement by the British minister, the Saudi Arabian newspaper Arab News wrote on October 11, 2017 that this is one of the latest displays of Western anti-Arab racism. Additionally, it was especially noted that Boris Johnson is notorious for “unusual” rhetoric. For example, in 2016, he stated that Donald Trump was “clearly out of his mind,” and is “betraying a quite stupefying ignorance.”

In the early October of this year, the Bloomberg agency published a release from the memoirs of the Secretary of Defense Ash Carter (in the Obama administration), in which he admits that “From that first moment, Russia sought to associate us and the counter-ISIS campaign with what they were doing in Syria — constantly telling the world of their desire to coordinate and cooperate with us.” However, he categorically opposed this under the pretense that this would hand “Russia an undeserved leadership role in the Middle East.”

The worsening crisis in the Western political system, weakness in current leaders of many Western countries, their strange zigzags in policies (to put it mildly), has forced many leaders of developing states to reach out more toward Russia in the hope of receiving assistance for solutions to their problems.

Even English newspapers, which in no way favor Russia, were forced to concur, like they did on November 29, 2017 in the newspaper Times, that “Russia has thoroughly outwitted Obama and Trump with realpolitik and regional expertise.”

The former chief executive of auto racing’s Formula One Group, Bernie Ecclestone, called President Putin a first class person for his ability to do “what he believes to be right and he stands by it.” Ecclestone thinks that the Russian leader is the “guy who should run Europe.”

Today, Russia is spoken of with a deep respect all over the Middle East, with an especial emphasis on her honest, consistent position in defense of the rule of law, adherence to rules of international dialogue, her reliability and responsible approach. Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, Libyan, and other Arab newspapers write about this. They speak of the “clear success of the Russian President’s direction in international affairs,” stressing in particular Russia’s “central, key role in the region.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

France in Turmoil… Blame Russia!

Russia did it!

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Well, what d’you know, regular as clockwork, Russia is being blamed – again – for “sowing social division” in Western states. This time, it’s the ongoing nationwide public protests in France against economic austerity which some Western media outlets have claimed are being “amplified” by Russian influence.

One of the media outlets carrying such claims is British newspaper, the Times of London. Last month, this same supposedly serious paper published claims that a popular Russian cartoon series, Masha and The Bear, was trying to “subvert” Western children with “pro-Russia” sentiments. After that ridiculous piece of garbage journalism, what credibility has the Times got to now push claims that Russia is behind the social protests engulfing France? Exactly, enough said.

France has been roiled by nearly five weeks of anti-government demonstrations, popularly referred to as the Yellow Vest movement. Protesters are planning to stage rallies in the capital Paris and other major cities this weekend for the fifth consecutive week. Clashes with riot police and burning vehicles in the Champs Élysées and other iconic public venues across France certainly speak to the gravity of the social anger being expressed by millions of French people.

The French public are incensed by mounting economic hardship under the government of President Emmanuel Macron, the former investment banker who wants to gut workers’ rights and social benefits under the euphemism of “reforms”. That’s after he and his wife recently redecorated the gilded Élysée Palace with ornate furnishings, wallpaper and carpets to the tune of €600,000. Many French workers are struggling to even heat their homes, such is prevalence of poverty.

This week, Macron made a nationwide televised address from this same gilded palace in which he appealed for calm and stated that the authorities would belatedly make concessions in an attempt to alleviate anger over tax and other economic issues that the French public say have hit them hard with deprivation.

Nevertheless, many French citizens say that Macron’s concessions are not nearly enough to appease their grievances. They have vowed to continue protesting, despite a terror incident this week in the eastern city of Strasbourg in which a gunman apparently killed three people. French authorities have urged protests to be called off in the aftermath of the tight security situation. The protesters have so far refused to call off their nationwide demonstrations.

It seems significant that as the Macron government is increasing its pressure on protests to subside – no doubt out of alarm that the authorities are losing control over the populace – then this week the media are lately reporting on claims that Russia is “amplifying” the unrest.

Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, told French media that his government was launching a probe into allegations of Russian incitement of the Yellow Vest movement. It seems like a cynical distraction to undermine the legitimacy of public fury.

What are the allegations of Russian interference based on? Apparently, the Times of London and other Western media outlets reported that “Russian-linked” social media posts are commenting on the protests. So too, it is claimed, Russian news media have devoted undue coverage to the French demonstrations.

So, let’s get this straight. Russian social media users and Russian news media are to blame for “amplifying” French unrest because they happen to report or discuss such unrest. The logic is absurd. No doubt millions of people in countries around the world as well as their news media are commenting on these momentous events in Europe. Just because Russians are doing that, then this is cited as “evidence” of Russian interference. What underlies that ludicrous conclusion is the most fatuous prejudice of Russophobia.

Western states are living in denial. Deep social problems from poverty under their failed economic policies and from disenfranchisement under failed political governance are inherent causes. Yet in spite of the systemic failure, Russia is cast as the scapegoat, rather than looking inward at the inherent causes.

We saw this in the US after the election of maverick outsider Donald Trump as president and with Britain’s Brexit referendum to leave the European Union. Those events were the result of discontent within those societies with regard to the status quo. Rather than dealing with their inherent social, economic and political problems, certain elements within the ruling class in the US and Britain sought to explain away the failing by pointing the blame on Russia.

The same tawdry thinking is being invoked with regard to the French protests.

Admittedly, however, the tedious narrative of blaming Russia is wearing thin, and so the latest claims about Russia stirring up the French are not being too widely played in Western media, no doubt because of a realization even by the Western media that such claims are idiotic. Again, after the Masha and the Bear farcical “report”, the Russian “red-baiting” in Western media has lost any potency it may once have had.

Western states are indeed confronting huge challenges from their own populaces. Poverty, social injustice, unemployment, crumbling public services, rampant alienation from state institutions, disgust with criminal militarism, among other grievances, are all motivating popular discontent and anger. The French protests are symptomatic of an international revolt against injustice of a failing capitalist order.

Western ruling establishments are only stoking even more popular uprising by refusing to take the societal malaise seriously. They are postponing a day of reckoning which will come sooner or later with greater force. Blaming Russia is part of their futile charade to postpone the day of reckoning. Telling French people they are being manipulated by Kremlin agents is laughable, contemptible and fueling the calamity of political collapse. Out of collapse, it may be hoped that some progressive, democratic new polity might emerge.

In an absurdist twist of the Marie Antoinette fable, French and Western authorities are saying, “The people want bread – but the Russians are telling them they should eat cake”. The travesty of their own elitist irrelevance is what’s making Western societies revolt against their establishments.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The real reason Western media & CIA turned against Saudi MBS

The problem with MBS isn’t that he is a mass murdering war criminal, it is that he is too “independent” for the United States’ liking.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


Forces are aligning against Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, lead by elements within the CIA and strong players in the mainstream media. But what is really behind this deterioration in relationship, and what are its implications?

Following the brutal murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, western media and various entities, including the CIA, appear to have turned their back on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS). In response to the scandal, the Guardian released a video which its celebutante, Owen Jones, captioned“Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest threats on Earth. Time to stop propping up its repulsive regime.”

The Guardian was not alone in its condemnation. “It’s high time to end Saudi impunity,” wrote Hana Al-Khamri in Al-Jazeera. “It’s time for Saudi Arabia to tell the truth on Jamal Khashoggi,” the Washington Post’s Editorial Board argued. Politico called it “the tragedy of Jamal Khashoggi.”

Even shadowy think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Atlantic Council released articles criticising Saudi Arabia in the wake of Khashoggi’s death.

A number of companies began backing away from Saudi money after the journalist’s death, including the world’s largest media companies such as the New York Times, the Economist’s editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes, Arianna Huffington, CNN, CNBC, the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Google Cloud CEO, just to name a few.

The CIA concluded that MBS personally ordered Khashoggi’s death, and was reportedly quite open in its provision of this assessment. Antonio Guterres, secretary-general of the UN, also took time out of his schedule to express concern over Saudi Arabia’s confirmation of the killing.

At the time of the scandal, former CIA director John Brennan went on MSNBC to state that the Khashoggi’s death would be the downfall of MBS. Furthermore, the US Senate just voted in favour of ending American involvement in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen (a somewhat symbolic victory, though this is a topic for another article), but nonetheless was a clear stab at MBS personally.

The only person who appeared to continue to uphold America’s unfaltering support for MBS, even after all the publicly made evidence against MBS, was the US president himself. So after years of bombarding Yemen, sponsoring terror groups across the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and beyond, why is it only now that there has been mounting opposition to Saudi Arabia’s leadership? Let’s just bear in mind that western media had spent years investing in a heavy PR campaign to paint MBS as a “reformer.”

Former national security adviser under Barack Obama’s second term, Susan Rice, wrote an article in the New York Times, in which she called MBS a “partner we can’t depend on.” Rice concludes that MBS is “not and can no longer be viewed as a reliable partner of the United States and our allies.” But why is this? Is it because MBS is responsible for some of the most egregious human rights abuses inside his own kingdom as well as in Yemen? Is it because of MBS’ support for groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda? No, according to Rice, we “should not rupture our important relationship with the kingdom, but we must make it clear it cannot be business as usual so long as Prince Mohammad continues to wield unlimited power.”

One will observe that the latter segment of Rice’s article almost mirrors former CIA director Brennan’s word on MSNBC word for word who stated that:

“I think ultimately this is going to come out. And it’s very important for us to maintain the relations with Saudi Arabia. And if it’s Mohammed bin Salman who’s the cancer here, well, we need to be able to find ways to eliminate the cancer and to move forward with this relationship that is critical to regional stability and our national interests.”

In reality, this is probably the issue that western media and government advisors have taken up with MBS. Aside from the fact he allegedly held a huge hand in the brutal murder of one of their own establishment journalists (Saudi Arabia reportedly tortured and killed another journalist not long after Khashoggi, but western media was eerily silent on this incident) MBS is not opposed for his reckless disregard for human rights. With insight into Rice’s mindset, we actually learn that if the US were to punish MBS, he would be likely to “behave more irresponsibly to demonstrate his independence and exact retribution against his erstwhile Western partners.”

You see, the problem with MBS isn’t that he is a mass murdering war criminal, it is that he is too “independent” for the United States’ liking.

Last week, Saudi Arabia and the other major oil producers met in Vienna at the year’s final big OPEC meeting of the year. As Foreign Policy notes, Saudi Arabia remains the largest oil producer inside OPEC but has to contend with the US and Russia who are “pumping oil at record levels.” Together, the three countries are the world’s biggest oil producers, meaning any coordinated decision made between these three nations can be somewhat monumental.

However, it appears that one of these three nations will end up drawing the short end of the stick as the other two begin forming a closer alliance. As Foreign Policy explains:

“But Saudi Arabia has bigger game in mind at Vienna than just stabilizing oil prices. Recognizing that it can’t shape the global oil market by itself anymore but rather needs the cooperation of Russia, Saudi Arabia is hoping to formalize an ad hoc agreement between OPEC and Moscow that began in 2016, a time when dirt-cheap oil also posed a threat to oil-dependent regimes. That informal agreement expires at the end of the year, but the Saudis would like to make Russia’s participation with the cartel more permanent.”

Russian officials have been signalling their intention to formalise this agreement for quite some time now. Given the hysteria in western media about any and all things Russian, it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that this is the kind of news that is not sitting too well with the powers-that-be.

Earlier this year, Russia and Saudi Arabia announced that it would “institutionalize” the two-year-old bilateral agreement to coordinate oil production targets in order to maintain an edge on the global market.

While US president Trump has been supportive and incredibly defensive of MBS during this “crisis”, the truth is that the US only has itself to blame. It was not all too long ago that Trump announced that he had told Saudi King Salman that his kingdom would not last two weeks without US support.

Saudi Arabia is learning for themselves quite quickly that, ultimately, it may pay not to have all its eggs in one geopolitical superpower basket.

Saudi Arabia has been increasingly interested in Moscow since King Salman made a historic visit to Moscow in October 2017. While Trump has openly bragged about his record-breaking arms deals with the Saudis, the blunt truth is that the $110 billion arms agreements were reportedly only ever letters of interest or intent, but not actual contracts. As such, the US-Saudi arms deal is still yet to be locked in, all the while Saudi Arabia is negotiating with Russia for its S-400 air defence system. This is, as the Washington Post notes, despite repeated US requests to Saudi Arabia for it disavow its interest in Russia’s arms.

The economic threat that an “independent” Saudi Arabia under MBS’ leadership poses to Washington runs deeper than meets the eye and may indeed have a domino effect. According to CNN, Russia and Saudi Arabia “are engaged in an intense battle over who will be the top supplier to China, a major energy importer with an insatiable appetite for crude.”

The unveiling of China’s petro-yuan poses a major headache for Washington and its control over Saudi Arabia as well.According to Carl Weinberg, chief economist and managing director at High-Frequency Economics, China will “compel”Saudi Arabia to trade oil in Chinese yuan instead of US dollars. One must bear in mind that China has now surpassed the US as the “biggest oil importer on the planet,” these direct attacks on the US dollar will have huge implications for its current world reserve status.

If Saudi Arabia jumps on board China’s petro-yuan, the rest of OPEC will eventually follow, and the US might be left with no choice but to declare all of these countries in need of some vital freedom and democracy.

Therefore, ousting MBS and replacing him with a Crown Prince who doesn’t stray too far from the tree that is US imperialism may put a dent in pending relationships with Saudi Arabia and Washington’s adversaries, Russia and China.

Once we get over the certainty that the US media and the CIA are not against MBS for his long-list of human rights abuses, the question then becomes: why – why now, and in this manner, have they decided to put the spotlight on MBS and expose him exactly for what he is.

Clearly, the driving force behind this media outrage is a bit more complex than first meets the eye.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Multipolar World Order in the Making: Qatar Dumps OPEC

Russia and Qatar’s global strategy also brings together and includes partners like Turkey.

Published

on

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


The decision by Qatar to abandon OPEC threatens to redefine the global energy market, especially in light of Saudi Arabia’s growing difficulties and the growing influence of the Russian Federation in the OPEC+ mechanism.

In a surprising statement, Qatari energy minister Saad al-Kaabi warned OPEC on Monday December 3 that his country had sent all the necessary documentation to start the country’s withdrawal from the oil organization in January 2019. Al-Kaabi stressed that the decision had nothing to do with recent conflicts with Riyadh but was rather a strategic choice by Doha to focus on the production of LNG, which Qatar, together with the Russian Federation, is one of the largest global exporters of. Despite an annual oil extraction rate of only 1.8% of the total of OPEC countries (about 600,000 barrels a day), Qatar is one of the founding members of the organization and has always had a strong political influence on the governance of the organization. In a global context where international relations are entering a multipolar phase, things like cooperation and development become fundamental; so it should not surprise that Doha has decide to abandon OPEC. OPEC is one of the few unipolar organizations that no longer has a meaningful purpose in 2018, given the new realities governing international relations and the importance of the Russian Federation in the oil market.

Besides that, Saudi Arabia requires the organization to maintain a high level of oil production due to pressure coming from Washington to achieve a very low cost per barrel of oil. The US energy strategy targets Iranian and Russian revenue from oil exports, but it also aims to give the US a speedy economic boost. Trump often talks about the price of oil falling as his personal victory. The US imports about 10 million barrels of oil a day, which is why Trump wrongly believes that a decrease in the cost per barrel could favor a boost to the US economy. The economic reality shows a strong correlation between the price of oil and the financial growth of a country, with low prices of crude oil often synonymous of a slowing down in the economy.

It must be remembered that to keep oil prices low, OPEC countries are required to maintain a high rate of production, doubling the damage to themselves. Firstly, they take less income than expected and, secondly, they deplete their oil reserves to favor the strategy imposed by Saudi Arabia on OPEC to please the White House. It is clearly a strategy that for a country like Qatar (and perhaps Venezuela and Iran in the near future) makes little sense, given the diplomatic and commercial rupture with Riyadh stemming from tensions between the Gulf countries.

In contrast, the OPEC+ organization, which also includes other countries like the Russian Federation, Mexico and Kazakhstan, seems to now to determine oil and its cost per barrel. At the moment, OPEC and Russia have agreed to cut production by 1.2 million barrels per day, contradicting Trump’s desire for high oil output.

With this last choice Qatar sends a clear signal to the region and to traditional allies, moving to the side of OPEC+ and bringing its interests closer in line with those of the Russian Federation and its all-encompassing oil and gas strategy, two sectors in which Qatar and Russia dominate market share.

In addition, Russia and Qatar’s global strategy also brings together and includes partners like Turkey (a future energy hub connecting east and west as well as north and south) and Venezuela. In this sense, the meeting between Maduro and Erdogan seems to be a prelude to further reorganization of OPEC and its members.

The declining leadership role of Saudi Arabia in the oil and financial market goes hand in hand with the increase of power that countries like Qatar and Russia in the energy sectors are enjoying. The realignment of energy and finance signals the evident decline of the Israel-US-Saudi Arabia partnership. Not a day goes by without corruption scandals in Israel, accusations against the Saudis over Khashoggi or Yemen, and Trump’s unsuccessful strategies in the commercial, financial or energy arenas. The path this doomed

trio is taking will only procure less influence and power, isolating them more and more from their opponents and even historical allies.

Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi, the Eurasian powerhouses, seem to have every intention, as seen at the trilateral summit in Buenos Aires, of developing the ideal multipolar frameworks to avoid continued US dominance of the oil market through shale revenues or submissive allies as Saudi Arabia, even though the latest spike in production is a clear signal from Riyadh to the USA. In this sense, Qatar’s decision to abandon OPEC and start a complex and historical discussion with Moscow on LNG in the format of an enlarged OPEC marks the definitive decline of Saudi Arabia as a global energy power, to be replaced by Moscow and Doha as the main players in the energy market.

Qatar’s decision is, officially speaking, unconnected to the feud triggered by Saudi Arabia against the small emirate. However, it is evident that a host of factors has led to this historic decision. The unsuccessful military campaign in Yemen has weakened Saudi Arabia on all fronts, especially militarily and economically. The self-inflicted fall in the price of oil is rapidly consuming Saudi currency reserves, now at a new low of less than 500 billion dollars. Events related to Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) have de-legitimized the role of Riyadh in the world as a reliable diplomatic interlocutor. The internal and external repression by the Kingdom has provoked NGOs and governments like Canada’s to issue public rebukes that have done little to help MBS’s precarious position.

In Syria, the victory of Damascus and her allies has consolidated the role of Moscow in the region, increased Iranian influence, and brought Turkey and Qatar to the multipolar side, with Tehran and Moscow now the main players in the Middle East. In terms of military dominance, there has been a clear regional shift from Washington to Moscow; and from an energy perspective, Doha and Moscow are turning out to be the winners, with Riyadh once again on the losing side.

As long as the Saudi royal family continues to please Donald Trump, who is prone to catering to Israeli interests in the region, the situation of the Kingdom will only get worse. The latest agreement on oil production between Moscow and Riyad signals that someone in the Saudi royal family has probably figured this out.

Countries like Turkey, India, China, Russia and Iran understand the advantages of belonging to a multipolar world, thereby providing a collective geopolitical ballast that is mutually beneficial. The energy alignment between Qatar and the Russian Federation seems to support this general direction, a sort of G2 of LNG gas that will only strengthen the position of Moscow on the global chessboard, while guaranteeing a formidable military umbrella for Doha in case of a further worsening of relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending